- This topic has 1,389 replies, 183 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
nicole2035.
-
CreatorTopic
-
May 14, 2014 at 3:33 pm #185550
jeffKeymasterFree Study Planner, Notes, Audio, Flashcards: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan/
Free CPA Exam Survival Guide: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-survival-guide/
-
AuthorReplies
-
July 10, 2014 at 3:30 am #592914
GabeParticipantQuick question: let's say a lawyer refuses to respond to audit inquiry, would this be considered a scope limitation? I remember reading somewhere that it wasn't because it wasn't management's fault. Any help?
CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016July 10, 2014 at 3:47 am #592915
PumpkinsMemberHi Gabe.
I've seen similar questions- If a lawyer refuses to respond to an Auditor's inquiry, the auditor should attempt to perform other procedures to gain comfort around litigations, claims, and assessments.
However, if the auditor still cannot gain sufficient, appropriate evidence to support the assertions in this area, they won't be able to express an opinion- therefore, I think it would be a scope limitation even if it's not management's fault.
AUD- 93
BEC- 81
FAR- 1/26/2015
REG- TBDCIA Exams Passed in March, 2014
July 10, 2014 at 3:54 am #592916
PumpkinsMemberTo clarify- I think they could also express a qualified opinion and put the LCA area as the “Except for” in the basis of the qualified opinion paragraph.
AUD- 93
BEC- 81
FAR- 1/26/2015
REG- TBDCIA Exams Passed in March, 2014
July 10, 2014 at 3:55 am #592917
GabeParticipantSo qualified or disclaimer?
CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016July 10, 2014 at 7:02 pm #592918
AnonymousInactiveHey guys,
Currently in the last 2 1/2 weeks of Reg (taking the 25th) then I will be starting AUD with a test date of the 8/29..
In the groups opinion, do you guys think 5 weeks of 20-25 hours per week will be enough to lock this bad boy up?
Thanks in advance for the insight, and good luck to those testing soon! 🙂
July 10, 2014 at 8:08 pm #592919
BEACPAParticipantGabe,
A lawyer's refusal to furnish the information requested in an inquiry letter either in writing or orally would be a limitation on the scope of the audit sufficient to preclude an unqualified opinion. Now, as far as qualified or disclaimer, that just depends on the importance of the omitted procedure(s) to his or her ability to form an opinion on the financial statements being audited. This assessment will be affected by the nature and magnitude of the potential effects of the matters in question and by their significance to the financial statements. If the potential effects relate to many financial statement items, (which in this case I believe it would) this significance is likely to be greater than if only a limited number of items is involved.
If this was in a question, I believe they'd state whether it is material or pervasive, allowing you to deem it as qualified or disclaim respectively. Hope this helps.
FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!July 10, 2014 at 8:47 pm #592920
PortiaMemberHey All,
RE: Ninja MCQ Question #: 1329 Category: 6A5 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (IFAC)
Can someone explain why “structural threat” is included in the list of correct answers? Below is the question with the response:
Under the IESBA Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, threats to the fundamental principles are to be identified so that safeguards can be applied. Potential threats identified include all of the following except:
A. self-interest threats.
B. self-review threats.
Incorrect C. structural threats.
D. All of the answer choices are threats identified in the Code of Ethics.
You answered C. The correct answer is D.
The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants identifies five potential threats to the fundamental principles: self-interest, self-review, advocacy, familiarity, and intimidation threats. Once identified, safeguards are to be applied so that the principles are not compromised. Examples of safeguards are provided in Part B and C of the Code of Ethics.
So, “structural threat” is not listed in the answer. I thought maybe “structural threat” is part of the definition of one of the five threats, but the reference did not have detail.
Can someone clarify the answer for me or is this possibly an error in the Ninja MCQ?
July 10, 2014 at 8:59 pm #592921
BEACPAParticipantPortia,
This is clearly an error. I took the following straight from the regulations:
(a) Self-interest threat – the threat that a financial or other interest will inappropriately
influence the professional accountant’s judgment or behavior;
(b) Self-review threat – the threat that a professional accountant will not appropriately
evaluate the results of a previous judgment made or service performed by the
professional accountant, or by another individual within the professional
accountant’s firm or employing organization, on which the accountant will rely
when forming a judgment as part of providing a current service;
(c) Advocacy threat – the threat that a professional accountant will promote a client’s
or employer’s position to the point that the professional accountant’s objectivity is
compromised;
(d) Familiarity threat – the threat that due to a long or close relationship with a client
or employer, a professional accountant will be too sympathetic to their interests or
too accepting of their work; and
(e) Intimidation threat – the threat that a professional accountant will be deterred from
acting objectively because of actual or perceived pressures, including attempts to
exercise undue influence over the professional accountant.
See https://www.ifac.org/sites/default/files/meetings/files/4320.pdf
Paragraph 100.13
FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!July 10, 2014 at 9:22 pm #592922
PortiaMemberHey BEACPA,
Thank you for your quick reply.
My AUD exam is next Tuesday and I am getting a bit anxious and as a result my self confidence is affected. Thank you for relieving my misery.
Portia
July 10, 2014 at 10:41 pm #592923
AnonymousInactiveOk, I've got similar to Gabe's question. What if predecessor refuses providing documentation to successor auditor. What is successor auditor supposed to do in this case, no “ifs” , problem does not say how material it is. Can it be disclaimer opinion, withdrawals, reassessing the risk or anything else?
July 10, 2014 at 10:49 pm #592924
GabeParticipantHello all,
Just returned from audit exam (#2 for me). Definitely harder MCQs than the last time, which I am taking as a good sign. The questions seemed to be more detail oriented and focused on particular engagement details, rather than “big picture” stuff.
Sims were ok. Found the research question and a few sims in the AL. Had a few JE sims, which I was expecting. As an auditor you are expected to make JE's if a client needs them, so it is definitely not out of the realm of the audit material. Other than that, long wait until the 4th for us non NASBA states!
CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016July 11, 2014 at 12:06 am #592925
AnonymousInactiveJuly 11, 2014 at 1:16 am #592926
NYCaccountantParticipantAnybody try the 2014 released questions? I felt with exception of 2-3, they were not difficult.
FAR - 93
REG - 87
BEC - 84!!!!
AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.July 11, 2014 at 3:15 am #592927
BEACPAParticipantNYCaccountant,
I don't have an answer to your question. However, could you be so kind to tell me where I could access the 2014 released questions that you referred to? Thank you in advance!
Cheers,
BEACPA
FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!July 11, 2014 at 3:21 am #592928
BEACPAParticipantCPA_NY,
The auditor wouldn't have reason to withdraw in this case. If you weren't given the materiality, then I'd been inclined to go with a qualified opinion because I believe this is the opinion given if managment refuses to allow you a legal rep letter. Does anyone else have any thoughts. Hope you find what you're looking for CPA_NY. Good Luck!
Cheers,
FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God! -
AuthorReplies
- The topic ‘[Q3] AUD Study Group 2014 - Page 52’ is closed to new replies.
